Wilcox et al v. Max Welders, LLC et al, No. 2:2012cv02389 - Document 214 (E.D. La. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 194 Motion to alter or amend the Court's August 28, 2013 order and reasons. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/31/2013. (blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilcox et al v. Max Welders, LLC et al Doc. 214 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSEPH R. WILCOX ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 12-2389 MAX WELDERS, LLC ET AL. SECTION I ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion1 filed by plaintiffs, Joseph R. Wilcox (“Wilcox”) and Lisa Wilcox, to alter or amend the Court’s August 28, 2013 order and reasons2 pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Max Welders, LLC (“Max Welders”) filed an opposition3 to the motion, as did defendants Wild Well Control, Inc. and Superior Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, “Wild Well”).4 For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. The Court assumes familiarity with the general background of this case as set forth in the Court’s August 28, 2013 order and reasons, which granted Max Welders’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law.5 In that order, the Court found that plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Wilcox qualifies as a Jones Act seaman 1 R. Doc. No. 194. The motion is also captioned with an alternative request for a new trial. However, no trial has occurred, and it is not scheduled to commence until April 14, 2014. See R. Doc. No. 213, at 3. Additionally, a motion for summary judgment filed by Wild Well has been submitted for this Court’s consideration. R. Doc. No. 192. The Court makes no comment or ruling regarding that motion. 2 R. Doc. No. 165. 3 R. Doc. No. 201. 4 R. Doc. No. 200. 5 See R. Doc. No. 165, at 1-4. Dockets.Justia.com because he does not meet one of the two “essential requirements for seaman status” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chandris, Inc. v. Lastis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995).6 Plaintiffs now challenge the granting of summary judgment on the basis that the Court “failed to take into consideration [Wilcox’s] relationship with his borrowing employer [Wild Well] and ignored the evidence regarding his reassignment.”7 Plaintiffs contend that the Court’s August 28, 2013 order and reasons “directly contravenes the Fifth Circuit’s decision” in Roberts v. Williams-McWilliams Co., 648 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1981).8 A motion to alter or amend a judgment filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) “serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). A district court has “considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration” pursuant to Rule 59(e). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air. Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). “The Court must strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs may not use a Rule 59 motion to merely revisit issues that were decided against them. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[S]uch a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)); see also Arceneaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 07-7701, 6 Id. at 5-15. This Court found that there was some issue of material fact as to whether Wilcox contributed to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. Id. at 6-9. 7 R. Doc. No. 194-1, at 2. 8 Id. 2 2008 WL 2067044, at *1 (E.D. La. May 14, 2008) (Feldman, J.) (“Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings.”) Plaintiffs, citing Roberts, raised the same arguments in their opposition9 to the motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, unlike the instant motion, plaintiffs did not refer to Wilcox as the “borrowed employee” of Wild Well in their opposition.10 Considering the “need for finality and the need to render just decisions,” Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at 355, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not “demonstrate[d] the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based.” Jupiter, 1999 WL 796218, at *1. Plaintiffs have “not presented any new evidence or persuaded the Court that it made any errors in its [August 28, 2013] Order and Reasons, let alone the manifest errors of law or fact necessary to entitle a party to alteration or amendment of judgment under Rule 59(e).” 2008 WL 2067044, at *1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) is not warranted. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, October 31, 2013. _______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 R. Doc. No. 66, at 6-21. See id. 10 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
